danish pesticide use reduction programme · 2016. 3. 20. · recommendations were used to develop...

1Pesticide Action Network - Europe - June 2005

Danish Pesticide Use Reduction Programme

- to Benefit the Environment and the Health

PAN Europe Pesticides Action Network Europe

2 Danish Pesticide Use Reduction Programme - to Benefit the Environment and the Health

Why pesticide use reduction 3

How to measure pesticide use and risk 7

Methods: Extension service and plant protection groups 8

Methods: On-farm record-keeping and crop-specific goals 9

Methods: Changes to the pesticide approval scheme 10

Methods: Pesticide taxation 11

Methods: Pesticide free farming and buffer zones 12

Pesticide reduction in public areas and private gardens 13

Response from farmers and other stakeholders 14

PAN Europe assessment of the programme 15

About PAN - Europe 16

Table of Contents

ISBN: 87 - 89843 - 80 - 0

Text: Hans NielsenPesticide Policy AdviserThe Danish Ecological CouncilBlegdamsvej 4B2200 Copenhagen N, DenmarkEmail: [email protected]

Layout: Søren Dyck-MadsenPrint: Øko-tryk, Denmark

The pamphlet has been financed by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency.The pamphlet can be read and downloaded from the PAN-Europe web-site www.pan-europe.infoPrinted in English, Spanish, Polish and Russian

Published by

PAN-Europec/o PAN UKDevelopment House56-64 Leonard StreetLondon EC2A 4JXUKTel +44 (0) 207 065 0920Fax +44 (0) 20 7065 0907Email: [email protected]

June 2005


Why Pesticide Use Reduction?

This booklet summarises the experiences over 20 years in Denmark in reducing pesticide hazards and use. PAN Europe believes that the Danish experi-ence is highly relevant for other European countries and we are disseminating this information in the context of the forthcoming EU Thematic Strategy for a sustainable use of pesticides.

Pesticide use reduction was introduced in Denmark in 1986 by the first governmental Pesticide Action Plan. It was prompted by a major increase in the use of pesticides and a serious decline in farmland wildlife in the beginning of the 1980’s. The wild plant diversity in farmland, for example, decreased by 60% from 1970 to 1990, and the catch of par-tridges fell by 70% from 1970 to 1985.

The main reasons for pesticide use reduction are:

• to protect consumers and land workers against health risks and harmful effects resulting from the use of pesticides and from ingestion of pesti-cides through food and drinking water

• to protect the environment against harmful effects from pesticides, both direct and indirect, in farmland, water courses and affected natural habitats.

The first Pesticide Action Plan 1986-1997

As it is not possible to specify an environmentally acceptable level for pesticide consumption because both the long term health and environmental effects are unknown, the goal is to reduce the consumption of pesticides as much as possible.In the first Plan it was decided that total pesticide consumption was to be reduced by 25% by 1992 and by 50% by 1997, and that consumption was to be steered towards less harmful agents.

The reduction was to be achieved partly through advisory activities for farmers and partly through intensified research on ways of reducing pesticide consumption. However, during the first years of this plan the use of pesticides continued to increase, partly because the advisory activities were not

effective in persuading farmers to reduce use. The 1992 target of 25% reduction was not achieved, in fact, there was an increase in use of 2%. New initiatives were therefore needed.

The first Plan included initiatives to improve farmer knowledge and skills in correct application of pes-ticides and good maintenance of spray equipment. From 1993 commercial users of pesticides have been required to hold spraying certificates. These require a course of 2 weeks (74 hours) on spraying, environment and health issues. For farmers estab-lished before 1. January 1991 a 12 hour spraying course was sufficient.

From 1994, farmers who cultivate over 10 ha have been required to keep spraying logbooks, in which they enter the products used, doses and crops for individual fields.

From 1994, spraying equipment has been subject to spot checks. Between 300 and 500 of the approximately 45,000 spray machines are tested annually. Yet 70-80 % of those tested still fail to satisfy the requirements. The government don’t have some minimum demands to the spraying equipment. A strengthening in this area is under preparation.

Other measures to influence farmer decision-mak-ing included the introduction of a pesticide tax, detailed in page 11.


010002000300040005000600070008000

1981-85

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Tons

Tonnes active ingredients GoalGoal

Lessons from the first Plan - rethinking the pro-gramme

In 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency pre-sented a progress report on the action plan, which showed that the aim of tightening the approval scheme and of halving pesticide consumption, as measured by kg active ingredient sold, had been achieved. Pesticides most harmful to health and the environment had been banned as a result of

revising the approval scheme.

However, the aim of a 50% reduction in the Treat-ment Frequency Index (TFI - explained at page 7), a measure of the intensity of pesticide application, had not been achieved, since the reduction had only been by 8% (from 2.67 to 2.45 TFI). Figures 1 and 2 show the trends in sales tonnage and TFI from 1986-2003.

Figure 1: Pesticide use in Denmark from 1986 to 2003 in tonnes of active ingredients

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

1981-85

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Treatment frequency GoalGoal

Figure 2: Pesticide use in Denmark from 1986 to 2003 in treatment frequency index

Treatment frequency pesticides Denmark

Sold tonnes of active ingredients in pesticides


To address this problem, the Danish Parliament decided to commission an independent expert study (the Bichel Committee) to evaluate the consequences of different reduction scenarios for phasing out the use of pesticides in Denmark. The Committee published its report in 19991, and its recommendations were used to develop the second Pesticide Action Plan 2000-2003. The committee recommended a three-pronged strategy for reduc-ing pesticide use, namely a general reduction of pesticide use, a reduction of exposure of biotopes, and increased organic conversion. Significant con-version of Danish farms to organic methods has been funded by the government and supported by consumers.

In the second Plan the target was to reach a treat-ment frequency of less than 2.0 before 2003 and establish 20,000 ha of pesticide-free zones along targeted waters and lakes.

By 2002 the treatment frequency had decreased to 2.04 and 8,000 ha pesticide free zones had been set up along targeted waters and lakes.

In the third Pesticide Action Plan 2004-2009 the target is a treatment frequency of less than 1.7 by 2009, promotion of pesticide-free cultivation and 25,000 ha pesticide-free zones along water courses and lakes. This plan includes fruits and vegetables for first time.

Results and achievements of the Action Plans

In Denmark pesticide use has been reduced from a treatment frequency of 3.1 in 1990-93 to 2.1 in 2001-2003, but Danish investigations2 have shown that it can be reduced further to 1.4 without signifi-cant economic losses neither to the farmers nor the society.

Water pollution

Since 1998 pesticides or their metabolites (break-down products) have been detected in more than 50% of sampled shallow (0-20 m below ground surface) groundwater abstraction wells. During the period 1998-2003, the annual percentage of wells with concentrations exceeding the limit value 0.1 microgram/litre, declined from 10% to 5%. By reducing the treated area, number of applications and pesticide dose rate, contamination of ground-water can be reduced significantly.

Owing to long hydrological cycle of groundwater the last 10 years of regulating both approved and banned pesticides have yet not worked through to demonstrable results in groundwater. The Geologi-cal Survey of Denmark and Greenland concluded that a continuing reassessment of the pesticides approved today means that groundwater quality will improve significantly. Most of the pesticides used today will probably not pollute groundwater above 0.1 microgram/litre, while some may well


be withdrawn from authorisation as a result of the early warning system, which is a field based Danish pesticide leaching assessment program. Today very few approved pesticides are found in wells. In 2003, banned pesticides were found in 25% and approved pesticides in only 6% of water-works boring controls.

Food residues

In 2003 pesticide residues was found in 45% of Danish produced fruits and in 79% of imported fruits of the same type. Only 7% of Danish pro-duced vegetables contained residues but 42% of imported vegetables of the same type contained these. These figures show, that public awareness on pesticide residues has had a significant effect on the use of pesticides in foods.

Biodiversity

In organic fields the biodiversity of wild plants is found to be 100% higher than in conventional fields and the amount of birds are significantly higher. A Danish study3 on the effects of reduced pesticide use on flora and fauna in agricultural fields shows that half and quarter doses of herbi-cides and insecticides gives an increased number of wild plant (weed) species, increased proportion of flowering species and increased abundance of insects and birds. Use of half the dose only creates negligible, if any, agricultural problems, especially if supplementary control of particular weed patches is carried out.

Pesticides are often found in aquatic ecosystems. The Bichel report concluded that pesticide use reduction reduces the probability of pesticide effects on biodiversity. A 50% reduction in pes-ticide treatment frequency index will reduce the probability of pesticide effects on crustaceans in typical Danish ponds from 55% to 25%.

Benefits and costs

The results of the pesticide action plans is not only a decrease in the use of pesticides, but also higher farmer awareness of the pesticide problems, much fewer pesticide residues in Danish fruits and vegetables than in imported, banning of harmful pesticides, stronger use restrictions than in other European countries, better farmer knowledge about

the effects of pesticides on the environment and better protection of the groundwater than in other European countries.

The costs of implementing the Danish pesticide action programmes are difficult to calculate. There is no evidence of costs of banning pesticides. The costs of implementing organic farming is not only covering pesticide use reduction but also better animal welfare, less use of fertilisers and food additives etc.

The Danish agricultural extension service has estimated that programme activities advising far-mers have reduced pesticide use by 0.75 counted as treatment frequency index, corresponding to national cost savings of about 60 million euros per year. Though the lower pesticide use reduces total yield, a significant part of the savings end up in farmers’ pockets.

The following sections describe in more detail some of the methods used to achieve pesticide reduction and activities in the 3rd Action Plan.4


How to Measure Pesticide Use and Risk

In most countries pesticide use is measured in tonnes of active ingredients and/or in value. But it does not give a good picture of the environmental impacts or trends in pesticide use because pesti-cides are used at very different dose rates and the prices are very different.

In Denmark the Treatment Frequency Index (TFI) is used as the most important indicator for the spraying intensity and the environmental load.

The treatment frequency index expresses the aver-age number of times an agricultural plot can be treated with the recommended dose, based on the quantities sold.

A treatment frequency index of 2,0 thus means that the sale of pesticides corresponds to spraying all the conventional farmland twice at recommended dose rate of pesticides sold in the year concerned.

The advantage of this parameter as a measure of use reduction is that it also takes account of modern lower dose pesticides, which are much more bio-logically potent than older chemicals. It is assumed to reflect the direct effect on target organisms as well as the indirect impact on ecosystems, which results from changes in the quantities and qualities of species in the food chains. The Bichel Commit-tee considered treatment frequency index the best indicator of pesticide environmental burden.

Experience in Denmark has shown a good correla-tion between treatment frequency index and effects in the aquatic environment, populations size of farmland birds and diversity of flora and fauna in the agricultural fields. Moreover the treatment fre-quency index mode of calculation is rather simple and transparent.5

An OECD project on aquatic and terrestrial indica-tors demonstrates, for example, that trends in treat-ment frequency index and load indices for Danish data (volumes weighted with toxicity for algae, daphnia, waterfleas, fish, birds and earthworms) coincide in 7-8 of the 9 years analysed.

A relation between Treatment Frequency and bio-diversity in the agro-ecosystem has been demon-strated.3 Because treatment frequency index is based on a standard dose that relates to the biologi-cally active field dose it is assumed to reflect the direct effect on target organisms as well as the indirect impact on ecosystems, which results from changes in the quantities and species found in the food chain. Treatment frequency index can thus be regarded as an indicator for biodiversity in the terrestrial compartment.

The treatment frequency index cannot be used to track changes in the intrinsic hazard properties. Other simple indicators are available for that pur-pose. But it is not possible to give a unambiguous image of the harmfulness of the pesticides by one indicator, because their harmfulness is different to spray operators, consumers, mammals, fish, bees, water insects, wild plants and groundwater. The adverse effect depends too on the dose, the spray-ing equipment, weather and the spray operator.To track trends in risks towards specific aquatic or terrestrial organisms a risk indicator for that purpose should be used. They can bring valuable information on changes in risk over time but do not address impacts on biodiversity.

The treatment frequency index should therefore be supplemented by indicators for a long list of risks, e.g. acute toxicity and long-term effects to humans, acute toxicity to other mammals, to water insects, bees and fish.

Reduction of these risks is a part of the approval scheme for each pesticide, and in Denmark the authorities have taken these risks in consideration by prescribing protection zones, reduced doses or reduced scope of application. This would be pos-sible to a much greater extent, if the substitution principle was implemented, so a pesticide could be banned, if there was a less harmful pesticide or a non-chemical alternative available and able to control pests as effectively.


Advisory activities with farmers are an important element of the Pesticide Action Plans. According to the plans, information should deal with the cor-rect use of pesticides, the feasibility of limiting use through changes in crop rotation, choice of seed varieties, mechanical and biological control, assess-ment of needs and improved spraying techniques. Great weight is attached to basing advice on finan-cial as well as environmental considerations.

By far the greater part of advisory activities is carried out under the auspices of farmers’ orga-nisations. The Danish Environmental Protection Agency has supported a number of advisory, infor-mation and research projects, which have been implemented partly by the farmers’ organisations.

20,000 farmers subscribe to weekly newsletters from the Danish Agricultural Advisory Service, a service belonging to and funded by farmer orga-nisations. The newsletters discuss spray products, preventive measures against insects, damage thres-holds and the use of reduced doses. Information is also given on field tours for farmers. The Danish Agricultural Advisory Service estimated in 1997 that the average dose of fungicides applied by their members was about 35% of the pesticide label re-commended dose, in contrast to 90% in 1987.

The Danish EPA has supported the development of “PC-plant protection”, which is a computer-based tool that can give guidance to farmers and advisers

on the need for insect and fungus control, choice of products and doses. The use of crop varieties, which are resistant to fungal diseases has become far more widespread.

Plant-production advisers have also established a network to which they make weekly reports on occurrences of fungal and insect attacks on dif-ferent crops. This network is used to assist in assessing the need for spraying and the occurrences of fungal attacks is published on the web and in “Farmer Weekly”.

The Danish EPA has also supported the establish-ment of plant protection groups, which consist of 8 to 10 farmers and an agricultural adviser. More than 95 of these plant protection groups were set up by 2001, meeting in the field several times each season to discuss topics such as herbicide selection and dosage and mechanical control options. These groups have had a major effect on farmers’ choice and dosing of pesticides.6

The Danish model for extension service means that pesticide consumption in Denmark in arable crops is now lower than in other European countries.

Danish National Field Trials have documented that such low consumption is economical for farmers and that the farmer income will increase by lower-ing TFI further from 2.1 in 2003 to 1.7.

Methods: Extension Service and Plant Protection Groups

Winter wheat TFI Pesticide price Euros/ha

Number of Yield Net yield Euros/hatreatments Hkg/ha

Denmark 1 0.85 40 2 84.1 740Denmark 2 0.85 40 2 85.1 720Germany 6.27 250 4 88,2 530Sweden 1.58 75 2 88.6 751UK 3.55 130 4 90.7 650

Source: Danish Agricultural Advisory Service 2000

Table 1: An example showing Treatment Frequency Index (TFI), costs and net yield in Denmark, Germany, Sweden and UK in winter wheat.


Methods: On-farm Record-keeping and Crop-specific Goals

Since 1994, farmers who have more than 10 ha have been required to keep spraying logbooks. This information is kept at the farm and not passed on to the authorities. The spraying logbooks serve to sharpen farmers’ awareness of their pesticide consumption and therefore motivate them to reduce the overuse.

Since 2000, the national agricultural advisory ser-vice has set targets for pesticide usage in the dif-ferent crops to ensure that farmers can meet the targets for pesticide reduction set out in the pesti-

cide action plans. The targets are used as a control instrument at farm level and to make the reduction possibilities visible for farmers. In this way farmers can see if they are using more or less pesticide than the target, and where reductions are possible.

Every year around 3,000 farmers are making vol-untary action plans to reduce their pesticide use. In both 2000, 2001 and 2003 these farmers have more than met the target for the Treatment Frequency Index as seen in figure 3.

Treatment frequency Index

Weeds Fungus Pests Growth regulators

Total

2002 2009 2002 2009 2002 2009 2002 2009 1994 2002 2009Winter wheat 1.20 0.95 0.75 0.65 0.25 0.15 0.10 0.00 3.20 2.30 1.75Spring barley 0.70 0.70 0,4 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.80 1,4 1.30Winter rape 0.80 0.60 0.15 0.15 0.60 0.80 0.00 0.00 2.50 1.55 1.55

Potatoes for consume 2.00 1.60 5.50 5.00 0.35 0.50 0.00 0.00 6.60 7.85 7.10Maize 1.10 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.20 1.05Grass in rotation 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08

Coach grass control 0.30 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.30 0.25Average treatment index for all crops 1.28 1.08 0.50 0.46 0.26 0.22 0.05 0.01 2.51 2.09 1.77

Source: Danish Agricultural Advisory Service

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

2000 2001 2002

Trea

tmen

t Fre

quen

cy In

dex

(TFI

)

Actual Target

Figure 3: Farm-level action plans

Table 2: Total Treatment Frequency Index for pesticides in 1994 and targets for some crops at farm level for 2002 and 2009

Farm-level action plans


Methods: Changes to the PesticideApproval Scheme

The Pesticide Action Plan’s goal of steering con-sumption towards less harmful products was made possible by law, so that it would no longer be pos-sible to approve substances considered especially hazardous to health or especially harmful to the environment.

The Danish approval scheme for pesticides has been continuously tightened, and in the last few years, a number of agents considered to be dan-gerous to the environment and health have been banned.

209 pesticides (active ingredients) were reassessed in the beginning of the 1990’s, of which only 78 were given renewed approval. The rest were either withdrawn, not asked for reassessment by the com-panies or rejected.

The “prohibition procedure” was made difficult by the pesticide companies at first, which appealed against all rejections, so it was possible for them to continue marketing pesticides that had been con-sidered unacceptable by the Danish EPA.

In 1995 therefore, the government amended a new “prohibition procedure” so that all cases recom-mended for prohibition were submitted to external experts, but without the option for companies to question these experts. The Minister for Environ-ment then makes the final decisions and the rele-vant active ingredients are then put on the list of pesticides banned or with restricted use.

Denmark has banned use in agriculture of a number of pesticides given recent EU-wide approval by the European Commission (included into Annex 1, the “positive” list of the EU pesticides authorisa-tion directive 91/414). The EU-approved pesticides banned in Denmark are: esfenvalerate, isoproturon, deltamethrin, iprodion, maleinhydrazid, paraquat, propineb, thiabendazol and ziram. The Danish go-vernment has imposed tougher restrictions on the use of some other pesticides.

The Danish government has recently decided to support the Swedish government lawsuit against the European Commission inclusion of the highly toxic herbicide paraquat on the positive list of 91/414/EEC.

Transitional schemes

In connection with tightening up the prohibition procedure, the Danish government decided to permit the use of prohibited pesticides under cer-tain special circumstances. For instance, the culti-vation of small niche crops, where pests cannot be controlled without the use of a prohibited pro-duct and where pests would constitute a significant threat to yield or commerce. These schemes will normally only operate for up to three years and the organisations concerned are required to initiate testing of alternative methods of cultivation.


Methods: Pesticide Taxation

Up to 1996, fees were levied on the agrochemical industry, amounting to more than 3% of the whole-sale turnover of pesticides. These charges financed the activities of the approval authorities, inspection and testing, research, information and training.

In 1996 the government introduced an ad valorem tax on pesticides instead of the 3% fee on whole-sale turnover. The tax was increased in 1998 and pesticide retailers reduced their prices to counteract the effects of the tax. Though the tax in 1998 was increased from 37% to 54% of the wholesale price, the farmers price for insecticides was reduced by 6% from 1997 to 2003. As most of the proceeds of the tax are returned to the farmers, they therefore earned money by this tax increase.

Today the tax amounts to 34% of the wholesale price in the case of herbicides and fungicides and

54% in the case of insecticides. 13% of this tax finances the activities of the approval authorities and research, 3.5% the pesticide reduction plan and 83.5% is returned to farmers through funds which finances a number of agriculture related activities.

When the tax was introduced, the resultant reduc-tion in pesticide consumption was estimated at 5%-10%. The tax both reduces the overuse of pes-ticides and makes other pest control measures more competitive, e.g. biological control and mechanical weed control.

The tax has been criticised for being a tax on value because new and more expensive but less hazardous pesticides will therefore get a higher tax than old cheaper and more hazardous pesticides. A fixed tax on the recommended normal dose has been proposed instead, but some pesticides have different normal doses in different crops, so it has been given up.

The tax has been criticised for not being higher on the most hazardous pesticides. Denmark’s strategy, however, has preferred to ban or restrict the use of the most hazardous pesticides via regulation and then to have a high tax on all pesticides to reduce their use.

By having a higher tax on insecticides than herbi-cides and fungicides the lower average price of insecticides should be counterbalanced.


Methods: Pesticide Free Farming and Buffer Zones

The Bichel-Committee recommended a general reduction of pesticide use, a reduction of the expo-sure of ecosystems and increased conversion to organic farming.

An increase in the acreage under organic produc-tion was both an element in the second Pesticide Action Plan and in the second Plan on the Aquatic Environment. The government had set a target of 230,000 ha organic acreage by the year 2003, but it was not reached. In 2003 around 170,000 ha or 7 % of the farmland was under organic production.

It is believed that increased research in organic food production would provide more knowledge and thus increase the possibilities of conversion to organic farming and promote a sustainable deve-lopment of farming with respect to economic, eco-logical and social aspects.

Increased development work in organic food pro-duction could also increase demand for organic food products, thus improving marketing and thereby attracting more organic producers.

Pesticide free buffer zones

The Bichel-Committee considered that there was a need for additional protection for certain ecosy-stems and recommended the earliest possible establishment of a 10-12 m no-spray marginal zone around natural wetlands.

There are about 64,000 km of watercourses in Den-mark, of which 25,000 km are targeted, and about 120,000 lakes over 100 m2. With 10-m wide buffer zones along targeted watercourses and all lakes over 100 m2, the total area of these buffer zones would be about 50,000 ha.

The government target of 20,000 ha buffer zones was not reached so the 3rd Pesticide Action Plan will focus on ways to implement an increased target of 25,000 ha buffer zones along targeted watercourses and lakes before 2009 by paying farmers a higher subsidy, if they place the set-aside areas here.


Pesticide Reduction in Public Areas and Private Gardens

In 1998 public authorities in Denmark agreed to phase out the use of pesticides on all public sector property by 2003, except areas with significant negative consequences on security or health of not using pesticides.

In 1995 a total of 29 tonnes of active ingredients were used on public areas. Of this, the local/district council share was 56%, the share of county coun-cils 7% and that of the State 38%. Herbicides accounted for about 90% of total consumption. The aim of the agreement was to reduce the risks of nature impoverishment and ground water pollution.

Ground water pollution receives a lot of political attention in Denmark, because 99% of all potable water production is based on non-filtered ground water, and around 30% of the wells are polluted by pesticide residues.

Glyphosate herbicide is not approved in Denmark for use in built-up areas, in order to protect ground-water, and therefore flame treatment of weeds is often used.

From 1995 to 2002 the local/district councils have reduced pesticide use by 83%, the county councils by 80% and the State by 73%.

In 2002 92 of the 273 local/district councils and 6 of the 14 county councils didn’t use pesticides at all.

1,4 million Euros has been used for information and research in development of alternative pest control methods in public areas.

The most commonly used alternatives are flame treatment and biological control.

Private gardens

Sales of pesticides to private gardens have varied considerably over the years. In 1985 consumption was about 30 tonnes active ingredients, if the moss control agent ferro-sulphate is ignored. By 1997 this was halved to about 15 tonnes. 11 tonnes was herbicides and 86% of this was glyphosate. Insecti-cides made up 4 tonnes, 70% of which was paraffin oil.

The government encourages the public to reduce pesticide use in gardens and wants the retailers voluntarily restrict the sale to private use in gardens to “ready-for-sale” products, i.e. those that do not need to be diluted. This has yet not succeeded, because few retailers are willing to do this volun-tarily.


Responses from Farmers and other Stakeholders

The farmers were very much against the first Pesti-cide Action Plan from 1986, but the public opinion against pesticides was strong, so the farmers didn’t succeed in stopping the plan.

In the following years the farmers pesticide use continued to increase, and therefore the govern-ment decided to strengthen the tools. The result was a decreasing pesticide consumption.

The Bichel-Committee and the scenario building process were extremely important in persuading the farming sector to rethink their position. The range of respected experts from different disci-plines, the active involvement of the farming sector in evaluating possible future scenarios for different levels of pesticide reduction and the emphasis on financial savings to be made from reducing unne-cessary use all contributed. The Bichel-report pro-cess and its recommendations led to a great change in the attitude to pesticide use reduction by farmers and pesticide retailers. From then on they sup-ported pesticide use reduction by the wording “As little as possible - as much as necessary”.

The conclusions in the Bichel-report were sup-ported by all stakeholders, i.e. that the use of pesti-cides could be reduced by 30-40% in 5-10 years without significant economic losses for farmers or society in general.

Farmers and pesticide retailers therefore today sup-port the pesticide action plans. They know that they can expect higher taxes or further pesticide use restrictions, if they don’t meet the targets.

Danish environmental organisations have criticised the second and third Pesticide Action Plan for not being sufficiently ambitious. The Plans have not totally eliminated the overuse of pesticides in agriculture and have not motivated farmers to increase their use of non-chemical methods signifi-cantly. Neither have the plans gone far enough in reducing ecosystem exposure. No-spray mar-ginal zones around wetlands should be established immediately by forcing the farmers to place their set-aside fields here.


PAN Europe Assessment of the Programme

Denmark has since the 1980’s been a pioneer member state in the EU on pesticide use reduction. No other member state has developed such a holi-stic programme to reduce the use and risks posed by pesticides.

Key lessons from the Danish experience are that a successful programme should include:

• a high awareness among the civil society and politicians on the need for pesticide use and risk reduction

• setting of quantifiable targets and mandatory requirements, based on field trials and economic investigations

• active participation from both farmer organisa-tions and farmers

• all stakeholders participate in the plan develop-ment

• existence of independent extension advisory service that can advise farmers on how to reduce pesticide dependency on a crop-specific basis

Main difficulties encountered in programme imple-mentation include:

• insufficient knowledge among farmers about pe-sticide reduction possibilities and their attitude to weed control

• insufficient motivation among farmers to reduce pesticide use

• insufficient legislative and financial incentives for farmers to reduce pesticide use

To disseminate these Danish experiences to all member states PAN Europe in 2002 made a sug-gested text for a Directive on pesticides use reduc-tion in Europe (PURE). The text can be found at www.pan-europe.info

Though Denmark has reduced the use of pesticides from a treatment frequency at 3.1 to 2.1 over a ten year period, new Danish investigations show2 that the treatment frequency could be reduced to 1.4 without significant economic losses either to

farmers or society. This means that there are still many farmers in Denmark who use far more pesti-cides than necessary.

PAN Europe therefore recommends the Danish government to strengthen the pesticide use reduc-tion programme further.

References:

1. The Bichel-Committee (1999): Report from the main committee to assess the overall conse-quences of phasing out the use of pesticides, Danish EPA.

2. Ørum, Jens Erik (2003): Opdatering af Bicheludvalgets driftsøkonomiske analyser. Fødevareøkonomisk Institut.

3. Esbjerg, Peter et. al.(2002): Effects of reduced pesticide use on flora and fauna in agricultural fields. Danish Environmental Protection Agency.

4. Gravesen, Lene (2004): Pesticide Action Plans in Denmark. Paper presented at the seminar on Reducing Use of Pesticides and Other Chemi-cals held 15-16 November 2004, Barcelona, Spain.

5. http://www.pan-europe.info/conferences/pure2003.pdf

6. Jensen, J.E. and Petersen, P.H. (2001): The Danish Pesticide Action Plan II; obstacles and opportunities to meet the goals. In: The BCPC Conference Weeds 2001, British Crop Protec-tion Council, Farnham, UK pp 449-454.


Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is a network of over 600 non-governmental organi-sations, institutions and individuals in over 60 countries worldwide, working to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound alternatives. PAN Europe is the regional centre in Europe of the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), was founded in 1987 and is facilitated jointly by PAN Germany and PAN UK. The PAN Europe network consists of consumer, public health and environmental organi-sations, trade unions, development and sustainable farming groups and farmer associations. We have over 50 partner organisations throughout Europe and over 200 organisations and individuals receive our newsletter. Our campaign for Pesticide Use Reduction in Europe (PURE) is supported by 91 organisations in 30 European countries.

PAN Europe’s work aims to achieve policy change at European level for:• more effective controls on pesticides to better protect human health and the

environment• concrete targets and timetables for pesticide use reduction• promotion of safer and more sustainable management of pests, diseases and

weeds• more transparency and public participation in pesticide policy and decision-making

PAN Europe is the focal point for NGO advocacy and public participation in EU pesticide policy and our activities include: lobbying at Brussels level; disseminating information on pesticide problems, regulations and alternatives; organising work-shops and conferences and facilitating dialogue for change between government, private sector and civil society stakeholders.

About PAN Europe

PAN Europe c/o PAN UKDevelopment House56-64 Leonard StreetLondon EC2A 4JXTel +44 (0) 207 065 0920Fax +44 (0) 207 065 0907Email [email protected]

danish pesticide use reduction programme · 2016. 3. 20. · recommendations were used to develop...

Documents